Krauthammer overstated likely ANWR oil production
In his January 26 Washington Post column, "Energy Independence," Charles Krauthammer advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), asserting that the United States could extract "a million barrels a day from" ANWR. He added that, "[i]n tight markets, that makes a crucial difference." His claim recalled a Wall Street Journal editorial (subscription required) that, as Colorado Media Matters noted, stated that drilling for oil in ANWR would "result in an extra one million barrels a day."
However, as Media Matters for America has noted, in its 2006 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) report, the Energy Information Administration concluded that, if ANWR had been opened for development in 2005, daily production would peak at 780,000 barrels per day in 2024, falling to 650,000 barrels per day by 2030. The 2006 AEO added that world oil costs would be reduced by "79 cents per barrel in 2024 (in 2004 dollars) when ANWR oil production is at its peak" if ANWR had been opened for drilling in 2005.
In his January 26 Washington Post column, Krauthammer wrote:
Even worse, the happy talk displaces any discussion about here-and-now measures that would have a rapid and revolutionary effect on oil consumption and dependence. No one talks about them because they have unhidden costs. Politicians hate unhidden costs.
There are three serious things we can do now: Tax gas. Drill in the Arctic. Go nuclear.
[...]
Second, immediate drilling to recover oil that is under U.S. control, namely in the Arctic and on the outer continental shelf. No one pretends that this fixes everything. But a million barrels a day from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 5 percent of our consumption. In tight markets, that makes a crucial difference.
We will always need some oil. And the more of it that is ours, the better. It is tautological that nothing more directly reduces dependence on foreign oil than substituting domestic for foreign production. Yet ANWR is now so politically dead that the president did not even mention it in the State of the Union or in his energy address the next day.
Krauthammer is the same guy who was telling us all of the neo-con B.S. about how Iraq would be a cakewalk. (Does cakewalk sound familiar, Ken Adelman? You bet it does.) Him and Kristol and Barnes and all of the other chickenhawk neo-cons were so wildly off the mark on Iraq and so stunningly and staggeringly arrogant about it that it is hard to believe them if they said that the sky is blue.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Again, besides the lies the Wash. Post dreams up, is the fact that EVEN IF ANWR is whored out to the oil companies, there is NO guarantee that the oil will STAY in the U.S. I live in Fairbanks, AK, with an oil refinery 10 miles from my house and approximately 50% of all the oil from the north slope goes OVERSEAS. Our gas prices are the highest in the nation (average per year) even though we are closest to the source. And, I do not know if the news hits the lower 48 much, but there has been MANY leaks and spills of over hundred of thousands gallons of oil in the last 2 years. BP was outed as NOT addressing ANY concerns over old machinery and (potentially) leaky pipes...These companies have ZERO oversight and do not proactively deal with any problems that may occur, and when a problem DOES happen, they charge the consumers more to clean the crap up...
Yeah, just like Exxon is still avoiding paying the $5 billion it owes Alaskans for the ExxonValdez spill by dragging it our for decades in the courts, while making twice that much in one quarter's profits. Maybe Alaska should take a cue from Venezuela and Bolivia and nationalize it's native resources.
states cant nationalize an industry
They can if they declare independence. There is an Alaskan seperatist party.
In an emergency, that oil stops being exported.
Nationalizing an industry makes no sense. If the Alaska Pipeline had been a government project, it still wouldn't be finished.
Re: spills, you can't attain perfection, only try to. If BP was derelict oand/or in violation, they or anyone else must pay the toll.
Tar balls from natural oil seeps off the Calif. coast were common before drilling ever took place, oil at the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta lays on the surface in places (naturally), and of course takes a toll on wildlife in those instances, but it's not the end of the world.
The bottom line is that, as long as we are an oil-based economy, we will be at the mercy of foreign providers...even if we strip mine the whole of Alaska and suck it dry.
That is probably the real reason we invaded Iraq; to establish a permanent military presence and control the oil. Of course, Cheneybush can never admit that; it would be politically embarassing.
if we are using iraq for oil,
why arent pricws lower?
Because the oil production has been interrupted by the insurgency, perhaps? Besides, bringing down oil prices wouldn't be their goal...making tons of money for their oil buddies and themselves is the real goal.
Oil, 2001: $23/bbl
Oil, today: $54/bbl
Mission accomplished!
As Nerzog notes:
That, and essentially reestablishing colonialism as a way to get rid of "troublemakers" and "basket cases" (cf. United States control of the Philippines between 1899 and its independence in 1946).
Too, it might be worth asking if oilfields in the "Lower 48" still have much production potential left in them, especially so in California, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming. That, and whether there are still untapped fields in the "Lower 48."
EARTH TO KRAUTHAMMER:
ANWAR couldn't even get through Congress when the Republican rubber-stamp artists ran the place.
It's got ZERO chance now.
Move on.
I'm all for drilling in ANWAR but there's another alternative. Mexico's No. 1 source of revenue is their oil exports. Second to oil are "remittances", or money sent from the US back to Mexico from their estimated 20 million citizens who entered the US illegally. How about giving Calderon two options: We either get $10/barrel oil or we annex his third world dump and clean it up?
One hardly knows where to begin.
First, remittances are the number one source of foreign income, not number two. Second, there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., from all countries.
Thirdly... annex Mexico? This is a plan? Instead of 20 million Mexicans, we get 108 million? How would you
Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful contributions.
Hey, Sleepy...I like your wordage of ANWR- it may at one point SEEMED like an AN-WAR, but it's going nowhere now...most people recognize that we need ALTERNATIVE FUELS!! And did you just advocate INVADING another country..??You need help..
Hey L, I'm all for alternative fuels: Nuclear, Now. Hey...that sounds like a slogan...And as far as invading another country, have you ever been to California? The invasion from Mexico is almost complete. Can you pull your head out for a nanosecond and smell the coffee? The rest of us would appreciate it.
Seems to me you have issues, my friend, collector item issues...
Dude, I live in San Diego and I go down to Mexico all the time. If you think California is like Mexico, I'd be glad to buy you a burrito in TJ...
Even the most generous projections for drilling in the Wildlife Refuge don't support the idea that it could support more than a drop in the bucket. The projected output still falls short of what's available in Prudhoe Bay, and that can't supply our needs. Not to mention that AK is allowed to ship and sell products directly to foreign nations, like Japan, so we don't even know if the oil would stay in our nation.
Look the fact is that we consume too much oil in this country. The Wildlife Refuge will not make us energy independent, nor will it make us more secure, nor could it supply enough to significantly lower the price of oil. In fact, the Saudi's could step up production and make it unprofitable (that is if there were no HUGE tax breaks for big oil).
Leave it alone and focus on the real issue: Reducing demand.
Increase the Gas Tax
The only way to reduce oil consumption (and accelerate the search for alternative fuel technologies) is to raise gas prices most likely through taxes. It is a simple fact of economics -- If a cheaper competing technology exists or can be produced, it will take over. It is painful, but simple.
This can either happen over 50 years or we can accelerate the process and get it overwith sooner by increasing the price through taxes. Either way it will have to happen. Oil is, of course, a finite resource.
Did $3.00+ gas have a big impact on driving habits this past summer? What impact would higher gas taxes have, other than putting $ in government coffers instead of into stockholders pockets? In a lot of states right now, the tax on over the road fuel is 20% or more of the cost of the fuel, a large burden on those dependent on private (and public transportation) for their livelyhood. How high should "gas" taxes be in order to make a significant impact on our habits?
I would love to take public transportation to work... unfortunately, here in Southern California, it would take three times as long, cost twice as much, and involve about 7 miles walking/biking on both sides.
"Chang[ing] our habits" is only half the story. We need public transportation and better-designed cities.
This is one of the inherent problem with Mass Transportation. Unless everyone on a given bus (or similar) lives in close proximity and works in close proximity, the bus will have to stop often to take on or discharge passengers. It could be even worse with fixed route units (light rail, subway, etc). As far as taxing, rather than $$/mile, wouldn't it be more fair to look at passenger mpg. This could make carpooling more attractive. The cost to administer would probably be prohibitive, but it may be a component of a conservation plan. We could require all those working away from home to live within walking distance of their jobsite, but do we want to go that route? A very complex problem that will require a great collective effort by the brilliant minds of American scientists and engineers to solve.
"Did $3.00+ gas have a big impact on driving habits this past summer?" --Oscar the Grouch
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually, yes. It did. High prices are exert pressure to reduce consumption and increase efficiency. SUV sales are way down as a direct result of high/unstable gas prices.
As for government getting the money, They actually receive less (if taxes don't go up) as taxes are usually on a per gallon and not based on the final price itself and per gallon consumption usually falls off. I am not against privatizing mass transit or removing government from much of the picture. It is another piece of the problem.
If tax revenues increase, they should be spent on improving public transportation or improving efficiency/conservation efforts (so Valentinian and I don't have to take 3 times longer to commute). It will also encourage car pooling, better/more fuel efficient car choices, better bike paths, etc. It is going to happen at some point anyway. What do you think is going to happen as gas gets more and more scarce? Better to get over it now. All the oil in Alaska won't make a difference.
"How high should "gas" taxes be in order to make a significant impact on our habits?" --oscar
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I intentionally left that idea open. I would leave that it economists. Some have said $4/gallon gas is the turning point. I don't know for sure. The government has a strategic interest in lowering gas consumption as it has been shown to directly fund radical Islam. If gas prices get higher, of course it will hurt people especially on the lower end of the economic scale, but it will reward people who make better choices in their transportation and improved technology will be more lucrative and in much higher demand.
It could have a pretty drastic impact, but the taxes could be phased in over several years, which could lessen the immediate impact and make it easier to transition to more fuel efficient vehicles or the other alternatives mentioned. The way I see it is that we will just accelerate what will inevitably happen on its own.
Krauthammer:"We will always need some oil. And the more of it that is ours, the better."
While this may actually be true for a while (even if non-petroleum fuels and lubricants someday are the norm,oil might be needed for other products), what gets me is the resignation of people like Der Krauthammer (or Cabbagemallet,as my ol' buddy calls him) to the idea that we will ALWAYS need oil.
Maybe he knows enough people making money off of oil that he wants to see every last drop sold and burned, but I can't take seriously the opinion of somebody who can't even comprehend a solution to the problem they're discussing.
Even if it turns out to be true that we'll "always need oil" in some way, I don't think problems this big get fixed by accepting the status quo.
Same feeling I get when the pundit discussing world events says "There's always going to be war & violence, always has been".
Maybe, but explain why. That's your starting point.
Some have said $4/gallon gas is the turning point. I don't know for sure
It seems to me that that price point would be a moving target. I think it is more like $$/mile. If could drive a car that got 60 mpg, $4 gas probably wouldn't force me to drive less.
I'd like to see any gas tax increase earmarked for things like battery research, coal liquification and cleaner burning coal fired power plants. All would have a much more immediate and longer lasting impact than destroying ANWR.
Good point. The tax is just the starting point to get the ball rolling. Your ideas are good ones. There are many areas that have been neglected too long.
Raising the price mainly puts the ingenuity of the private sector to work to solve the problem. That is worth much more than any revenue gained by taxes.
I think people do the $$/mile calculation somewhat already, but increasing the price of gas puts pressure on consumers to choose vehicles that are more efficient to make up for the added cost per gallon.
If we put as much effort into fuel efficiency as we did for the space program in the 60-70's, we could make hugh strides in gaining energy efficiencies, automotive and power generations. I think rather than a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, the government could pass laws that could require those companies to invest in energy research in lieu of taxes.
More efficient mass transportation will take a lot of research, because of the inherent inefficiencies (stops, fixed routes, etc) built into the system as now set up.
I largely agree. You sound a lot like Al Gore.
I am not at all for a windfall tax on the oil companies as you say. The space program wasn't just a program in a vaccuum. It was a race. There was urgency due to the fact that the Soviets were competing against us technologically. In order for greater innovation to occur at a desired rate, there needs to be some sort of pressure. The only way I can see to exert that pressure is to start by raising the price of gasoline. It also makes more expensive technology development seem more attractive by comparisson.
It is going to eventually happen entirely through the market as quantities of oil become more and more scarce over the next 50 years. Meanwhile we will have given MiddleEastern countries over that time period trillions of dollars -- some of which will fund terrorists, nuclear development, and radical islamic schools.